Reached the peak,lock down could start to be eased

mikew

mikew

Messages
5,548
Name
mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I know we have a couple of virus threads but i felt this will be the next main talking point, do you feel we have reached the peak or are we victims oh the old "you can make facts and figures show what you want".
In my area they say we are two weeks behind the mainstream infection rates, some of you must be in the same situation, it concerns me that if restrictions are eased too much our infection rates will go up.
Being coastal and a low infection rate we saw an increase in visitors last weekend, i guess thoughtless people decided as our rate was low it was a safe bet to come here.
Ok i accept the economy is suffering and individual finances in lots of cases are getting stretched or broken but i can be sure most of the people who have sadly died would rather still be here struggling to make ends meet.
The lockdown is driving me mad as far as movement restrictions go but lifting them will not help me as ime in the shielded group, finances not a problem at the moment as for once not a lot has changed for pensioners.
Will health or economy be the driving force is it even possibly to move on without choosing one or the other to put first.
 
I thought the 'we are past the peak' comment by Boris yesterday was appalling. I think we need to see another few weeks of declining numbers of cases and declining numbers of deaths to say that.

'We are past the peak' will encourage some to ignore the 'stay at home' guidance.

Although I'm in an age group that is more vulnerable, I am VERY fortunate in being able to isolate easily, and I know others have a much more difficult time but I think 'we are past the peak' could be giving the wrong message.

Dave
 
I think it's way too early to ease the lockdown in any significant way. I don't want to start any of he usual arguments but many people where I live don't seem to have altered their behaviour and seem to be carrying on almost as normal. If there is any official easing I'm afraid we'll see more waves as people just don't seem to want to act responsibly and with any encouragement at all I can see the floodgates opening and many more people coming into close contact with others.

The economy can be paid for, yes it'll hit hard but over time we can rebuild. Lives can't be paid for so I'm in favour of a cautious approach putting lives and health first.
 
Although we are past the peak, the CMO has said that lockdown will likely continue for another couple of months. Germany got their infections down to 2000 a day and started to ease restrictions and suffered a new surge in infections. So the CMO has suggested we don't ease restrictions until infections fall to 1000 a day.
That sounds reasonable but I would take it further to how those infections are distributed around the UK.
The latest view from a study in Warwickshire University is that over 50's should remain on lockdown as the risk of death is 20 times that of someone in their 20's. But to put that in perspective the percentage of infections resulting in the death in the 50-59 year olds is 1.3%. Also I think it was something like 70% of those deaths, the people were overweight or obese. So whilst age does have a factor and the older you are, you increase your chance of death, it's looking more and more likely that obesity is a strong factor. So why should obese younger people be allowed more freedom of movement, than an older fitter and healthier 50-59 year old.
 
One thing I heard recently from the CEO of NHS Providers(https://nhsproviders.org/) was when the lock down is eased we need a good policy of testing and tracing to make sure we are able to deal with any future outbreak. He was asking what is the plan for this.

Dave
 
woof woof said:
I think it's way too early to ease the lockdown in any significant way. I don't want to start any of he usual arguments but many people where I live don't seem to have altered their behaviour and seem to be carrying on almost as normal. If there is any official easing I'm afraid we'll see more waves as people just don't seem to want to act responsibly and with any encouragement at all I can see the floodgates opening and many more people coming into close contact with others.

The economy can be paid for, yes it'll hit hard but over time we can rebuild. Lives can't be paid for so I'm in favour of a cautious approach putting lives and health first.
Click to expand...

The economy in a bad way will cost lives too!
 
The government absolutely needs to start to ease the lockdown for macro-economic reasons, we're already looking at unmanageable debt and a major world depression, so they need to get more people working, both to ease the financial pressures and to get the country functioning again.

My guess is that this will start by allowing more people to go back to work, putting the responsibility for creating a safe(r) working environment on the employers. They will probably "encourage" this by stopping the 80% furlough payments to firms that can work reasonably safely.

But as for avoidable social contact, I think it's ludicrous that so many people now seem to be going out and about and basically ignoring the need to keep well away from other people. I'm in the demographic that's at fairly high risk (old and an insulin dependant diabetic) and although I don't like my current restrictions I will be happy to stick with them until it's safe to do otherwise, and in reality it won't be safe until we have either an effective treatment or an effective vaccine, both of which will take a very long time.

As for statements by politicians, all that they are actually saying is they plan to announce some kind of roadmap next week, but that nothing can change until hospital admissions and deaths have reduced significantly. That seems pretty clear to me but unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who are too thick to listen to what is actually being said and who think it's OK for them to start flouting the rules.
 
If people are at work they're sharing air, toilets and kitchen space. I can't see how a work place can possibly be anything other than a transmission zone.

We also have no effective and safe treatment for it. We also don't know if you have it and have no symptoms whether it comes back later and drops you stone dead or whether anyone that has had it then develops long term medical conditions.

I don't see how you can ease restrictions now without killing more people or risking long term health implications.

Anyone at work really needs to be wearing PPE all day every day or they have to be treated like a household ie if ANY of them have symptoms ALL have to stay home for 2 weeks after the symptoms have stopped. It's unworkable when you think about it.
 
srichards said:
If people are at work they're sharing air, toilets and kitchen space. I can't see how a work place can possibly be anything other than a transmission zone.

We also have no effective and safe treatment for it. We also don't know if you have it and have no symptoms whether it comes back later and drops you stone dead or whether anyone that has had it then develops long term medical conditions.

I don't see how you can ease restrictions now without killing more people or risking long term health implications.

Anyone at work really needs to be wearing PPE all day every day or they have to be treated like a household ie if ANY of them have symptoms ALL have to stay home for 2 weeks after the symptoms have stopped. It's unworkable when you think about it.
Click to expand...
I completely accept that it's risky and that we're nowhere near ready to go there yet. All that I'm saying is that this is pretty much bound to be the first step in the relaxation process.
 
The economic hardship can be reduced massively with a universal basic income. Even if it's not permanent it takes the pressure off.
 
I retired recently as a full time nurse although I still do some work. I’m appalled by the idea of ending the lockdown soon. As already noted some people are already ignoring the social distancing and putting themselves and others at significant risk. When politicians discuss easing the lockdown more people flouting the guidance.
When I see the pressure, working conditions my colleagues are working under, the hours they are putting in and those dying. I get very frustrated at any easing of lockdown.
Yes the economy will take years to recover. Yes there are many lessons to be learnt. But a persons life is more important than any of these things!
 
the Spanish flu did this and then came back the following year and killed millions ,then disappeared
 
Garry Edwards said:
My guess is that this will start by allowing more people to go back to work, putting the responsibility for creating a safe(r) working environment on the employers. They will probably "encourage" this by stopping the 80% furlough payments to firms that can work reasonably safely.
Click to expand...
I am returning to work on Monday. There is normally around 3k people on site, but around 2800 of those are now working from home. For those of us unable to work from home, in my area and probably other areas too, we are having our shift workforce halved. Half will work 3 weeks, whilst the other half remain furloughed. Then we swap. So after 3 weeks of work I will be furloughed for 3 weeks. This will continue until it is safe to return to some sort of normality. The company has been making it's own PPE to supply the workforce as well as frontline workers and social distancing measures have been set up in the workplace, ready for our return.
 
Too early in my view but people are getting frustrated and ignoring lockdown to some extent already, if lockdown isn't eased people will ignore it anyway and the numbers will go back up regardless of if lockdown is reduced/removed in the next few weeks.
I'd like to see us wait and see what happens in Spain/Italy, advise people that's what we are going to do and try and get them to see it's a sensible if somewhat cautious approach, isn't going to happen though.
Many will ignore lockdown if it remains or we will reduce/remove lockdown and the numbers will rise again I expect.

Cant legislate for stupidity.
 
MatBin said:
Too early in my view but people are getting frustrated and ignoring lockdown to some extent already, if lockdown isn't eased people will ignore it anyway and the numbers will go back up regardless of if lockdown is reduced/removed in the next few weeks.
I'd like to see us wait and see what happens in Spain/Italy, advise people that's what we are going to do and try and get them to see it's a sensible if somewhat cautious approach, isn't going to happen though.
Many will ignore lockdown if it remains or we will reduce/remove lockdown and the numbers will rise again I expect.

Cant legislate for stupidity.
Click to expand...
Certainly Spain seems to be taking it much more seriously than we are, I know this because my youngest daughter is stranded there. She can't get a flight back because the airline she's booked with keeps cancelling the arranged flights, and even when they actually run one, she will need to get special permission to travel to the airport.
nilagin said:
I am returning to work on Monday. There is normally around 3k people on site, but around 2800 of those are now working from home. For those of us unable to work from home, in my area and probably other areas too, we are having our shift workforce halved. Half will work 3 weeks, whilst the other half remain furloughed. Then we swap. So after 3 weeks of work I will be furloughed for 3 weeks. This will continue until it is safe to return to some sort of normality. The company has been making it's own PPE to supply the workforce as well as frontline workers and social distancing measures have been set up in the workplace, ready for our return.
Click to expand...
You obviously work for a large, responsible firm. By contrast, my youngest son is a farmer and the farm where he works is just carrying on as normal - fair enough to some extent because they are all essential workers, but the attitude there is 'casual' to say the least. Just as an example, handwashing is impossible during the working day because there are no toilet or handwashing facilities there, never have been.
 
woof woof said:
Not necessarily!
Click to expand...

Already been highlighted by the CMO - suicides and mental health issues for a start, Some people will struggle a hell of a lot if this lasts a long time. Not everyone can get the government assistance.
 
srichards said:
The economic hardship can be reduced massively with a universal basic income. Even if it's not permanent it takes the pressure off.
Click to expand...

How? WIll that basic income meet my mortgage and other commitments I have - who will pay for that basic income if half the business are shut?
 
Personally I think we need another 2 months of lockdown as we are now, May and June, however during that phase if some manufacturing businesses can change their processes to get staff back in safely then I am ok with that, personally I will not be budging until the government stops the furlough money.
My issue is mass transport like buses and trains how will that work.
pubs and restaurants need to be closed for longer maybe in to September.
 
Mr Bump said:
My issue is mass transport like buses and trains how will that work.
Click to expand...

One option would be if start times were staggered. Not just within one business but all businesses. That should reduce the number of people all travelling at the same time.
 
I believe my firm have moved desks apart as social distancing guidelines when sitting are 6m (yes 6m, not 2m) and to accommodate that the "staff" * will do a week at work and a week at home, that in itself will reduce travelling numbers.

* some of us are freelance but for the sake of ease we'll call them "staff" :)
 
srichards said:
The economic hardship can be reduced massively with a universal basic income. Even if it's not permanent it takes the pressure off.
Click to expand...

In more normal times I'm not a great fan of this as many do need the structure that work brings and without it can have disorganised and damaging lifestyles. During this crisis instead of UBI I'd prefer to see outgoings limited with rent/mortgage holiday and free or at least heavily subsidised essentials such utilities and basic foods rather than giving people money.
 
cambsno said:
How? WIll that basic income meet my mortgage and other commitments I have - who will pay for that basic income if half the business are shut?
Click to expand...

The rich and big business.

The hard lefts answer to everything.
 
woof woof said:
The hard lefts answer to everything.
Click to expand...
When I was very young and working as a part time assistant in a studio, my boss gave me the most useful advice of my life:

"When there's a problem and you find a solution, you will meet two types of people. The first type will tell you every possible reason why the solution won't work and they'll do everything in their power to prove their point. The second type will study your solution and advise you how you can best implement it."

(I've left out his salty nouns, adjectives and verbs while retaining the meaning)

:tumbleweed:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
When I was very young and working as a part time assistant in a studio, my boss gave me the most useful advice of my life:

"When there's a problem and you find a solution, you will meet two types of people. The first type will tell you every possible reason why the solution won't work and they'll do everything in their power to prove their point. The second type will study your solution and advise you how you can best implement it."

(I've left out his salty nouns, adjectives and verbs while retaining the meaning)

:tumbleweed:
Click to expand...

Maybe but I'm not too sure how that relates to who pays. My issue with the universal answer of the rich and big business is that they're hard to define and sadly we need both unless we want to see really big changes and start paying ourselves with carrots and cabbages.
 
I'm a field engineer doing weighing machines for the likes of Cosco and Tesco. I have been furloughed for the last month as I have mild COPD and prior to that I went out 3 times in 4 weeks. I've decided to go back to work at the end of May but will be taking extreme precautions. The company has already arranged that we park up and enter via the loading areas, and then staff and customers will not be allowed near. I personally have managed to get some N95 masks and I have a company supplied reusable FFP3 mask. In my van I will have a 25ltr water container, soap and towels, along with 80% alcohol hand gel for use in the premises.
My main problem is living on my own, sounds mad but when you see no-one, talk to no-one and spend days on your own it becomes mentally very straining.
Personally I don't think this virus is going away for some time, maybe 2 or 3 months but possibly considerably longer, I don't feel I can just hide away for the rest of the year so I'm changing my lifestyle to protect myself and in turn hopefully protect others. For me luckily and I do mean that I can manage perfectly well on the 80% wage as I've worked hard for many years to pay off everything I owed including my mortgage. I really feel for those that have lost their jobs or just fall on hard times.
 
MatBin said:
Too early in my view but people are getting frustrated and ignoring lockdown to some extent already, if lockdown isn't eased people will ignore it anyway and the numbers will go back up regardless of if lockdown is reduced/removed in the next few weeks.
I'd like to see us wait and see what happens in Spain/Italy, advise people that's what we are going to do and try and get them to see it's a sensible if somewhat cautious approach, isn't going to happen though.
Many will ignore lockdown if it remains or we will reduce/remove lockdown and the numbers will rise again I expect.

Cant legislate for stupidity.
Click to expand...

The Spanish are easing their lockdown from tomorrow to what we have now. Their numbers have been falling consistently over the past couple of weeks. 281 deaths in the past 24 hours.
 
woof woof said:
and start paying ourselves with carrots and cabbages.
Click to expand...
When the banks pushed themselves into the 2008 disaster, the government was quick to guarantee around £1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion pounds) to dig them out. Estimates of the actual cost to the taxpayer vary widely but by 2011 it was the view of the National Audit Office that the government was exposed to £456 billion of which £123 billion had actually been spent. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailout

As the main recipients of this largess were the very rich, it seems not unreasonable to assume that they would reciprocate by cheerfully paying higher taxes to assist their fellow citizens.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
When the banks pushed themselves into the 2008 disaster, the government was quick to guarantee around £1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion pounds) to dig them out. Estimates of the actual cost to the taxpayer vary widely but by 2011 it was the view of the National Audit Office that the government was exposed to £456 billion of which £123 billion had actually been spent. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailout

As the main recipients of this largess were the very rich, it seems not unreasonable to assume that they would reciprocate by cheerfully paying higher taxes to assist their fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

Quantify why the very rich were the main recipients of the banking bail out
 
95133611_10163439916865511_7717927205799460864_n.jpg



Yes, we've passed the peak, but that doesn't mean you can end the lockdown yet. If you jumped off a slide just after the peak, you'd break your legs. Much like a slide, remain seated (at home) until the end of the ride.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
When the banks pushed themselves into the 2008 disaster, the government was quick to guarantee around £1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion pounds) to dig them out. Estimates of the actual cost to the taxpayer vary widely but by 2011 it was the view of the National Audit Office that the government was exposed to £456 billion of which £123 billion had actually been spent. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailout

As the main recipients of this largess were the very rich, it seems not unreasonable to assume that they would reciprocate by cheerfully paying higher taxes to assist their fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

If only we had regulated the banks or had some gold to sell.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
When I was very young and working as a part time assistant in a studio, my boss gave me the most useful advice of my life:

"When there's a problem and you find a solution, you will meet two types of people. The first type will tell you every possible reason why the solution won't work and they'll do everything in their power to prove their point. The second type will study your solution and advise you how you can best implement it."

(I've left out his salty nouns, adjectives and verbs while retaining the meaning)

:tumbleweed:
Click to expand...
Hopefully you never wasted your time with the second person then.
 
mex said:
Yes, we've passed the FIRST peak, but that doesn't mean you can end the lockdown yet. If you jumped off a slide just after the peak, you'd break your legs. Much like a slide, remain seated (at home) until the end of the ride.
Click to expand...

My bold addition! I'd be surprised to see a big change to the current situation before the end of this month and even then we'll be being careful and staying away from crowded places as much as possible. Hopefully the next peak won't be as large as this one has been but I have a feeling that it's going to be more of a roller coaster ride than a simple slide. If we're lucky, it'll be more like a tennis ball bouncing than a power ball but we'll see.
 
Overexposed said:
Quantify why the very rich were the main recipients of the banking bail out
Click to expand...
Simply because they were among the biggest investors in banking shares and banking debt. Only the pension funds had larger investments and they are not, by definition, private investors.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
When the banks pushed themselves into the 2008 disaster, the government was quick to guarantee around £1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion pounds) to dig them out. Estimates of the actual cost to the taxpayer vary widely but by 2011 it was the view of the National Audit Office that the government was exposed to £456 billion of which £123 billion had actually been spent. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailout

As the main recipients of this largess were the very rich, it seems not unreasonable to assume that they would reciprocate by cheerfully paying higher taxes to assist their fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

Genuine question but didn't we basically take control of the banks then sell them back, so we had a way of getting the money (or some) back?
 
cambsno said:
Genuine question but didn't we basically take control of the banks then sell them back, so we had a way of getting the money (or some) back?
Click to expand...
The UK government bought into Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds. As of August 2019 it appears that the government still had its 43% of Lloyds and 73% of RBS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top